Robin, the very moment you start to DEFEND your own enlightenment, there is already something wrong.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Dear Lawson, > > Just one thing you should know: By definition Unity Consciousness means the > individual intention for one's actions does not start with oneself. It starts > with cosmic intelligence. This was very much my experience. So, unless cosmic > intelligence decided to make accomplishing the flying sidhi the criterion for > Unity Consciousness; that is, cosmic intelligence, in a given moment decided > to make someone fly through the flying sidhi, the mere demand that one prove > one's enlightenment by being able to fly, well it is absurd. Because it > suggests that one's behaviour becomes subject to the control and command of > another person. Each and every action of some one who is enlightened is > determined b cosmic intelligence, not individual intention separate from this > cosmic intelligence. So Maharishi saying that being able to fly is the > determinant of whether a person is enlightened or not, is just fatuousUNLESS > he meant that, a person who is in Unity Consciousness, should cosmic > intelligence through that person wish for him to fly, then he had better be > able to fly! > > When I was in Unity Consciousness there was nothing anyone could say to me > which would usurp the authority of this cosmic intelligence. So the demand: > Prove that you are enlightened by flying right now would be the equivalent of > saying: Your actions are determined by cosmic intelligence, but now I am > going to be the author of your actions: Obey me, not cosmic intelligence. > Maharishi himself was the classic exemplar of all this: never once attempting > to prove or demonstrate he was enlightened. And this was because he was not > subject to the demands or desires or judgments of anyone else. Not even to > himself: he remained cosmic to the very end I believe. > > Do you understand what I am saying, Lawson? That if you were enlightened you > would have the distinct and unchallengeable experience that all of your > actions were out of your control, and therefore any person making a demand > upon you simply would be computed cosmically in terms of: what is the correct > and appropriate response to what this person is asking me to do, namely prove > that I am enlightened by flying? And your response would NEVER be based upon > satisfying the individual subjective consciousness of that person. Now it > could come about that the cosmic intelligence decided: Ah, this person who is > enlightened is being asked to fly in order to prove he or she is enlightened. > Let's do it, then. But that would be on the terms of the cosmic intelligence > and only incidentally having anything do with the individual having made this > demand. Cosmic intelligence would take it out of this context and put it > inside a cosmic context. > > That said, I believe enlightenment to be an unnatural state of consciousness, > a perfect mystical hallucination. There is an experience of > unboundednessperpetualand the experience of one's actions being spontaneous > and creatively involuntary, guided, controlled and executed by cosmic > intelligence, But the state of enlightenment is, in an ultimate sense, > unrealIt is not a state of consciousness within which one is actually seeing > reality as it actually is. This is NOT what is going on. One is seeing > reality through a state of consciousness that does mechanically and > metaphysically represent a state of consciousness other than mere waking > state consciousness as known by the person before he or she became > enlightened. But more than this, it is not the intelligence which created the > universe which has created this state of consciousness; nor does the > intelligence which created the universe have anything to do with the actions > of the enlightened personI mean in the sense of being the direct and > specific cause of those actions, In this sense the "cosmic" in cosmic > consciousness is not cosmic at all. It certainly is a metaphysical power, and > perhaps even is being controlled by very powerful intelligences; but those > intelligences would be Maharishi's Vedic gods, or personal gods, or "impulses > of creative intelligence". Who have nothing to do with the creation of the > universe nor the creation of Lawson, Robin, orsince she is part of this > discussionJudy Stein. > > Even supposing there was someone who was a perfect Saintand was seen to > levitate (as recorded in the lives of various Catholic Saints); in each case > this levitation'flying'would never be at the behest of that person's free > will; it would always be imposed upon that person 'from on high', from the > intelligence of the Creator. > > Whatever is the nature of the intelligence which created the universe, which > keeps the universe is existence, and which created you and me and keeps us in > existence, that intelligence would never allow a single created being to defy > the laws of gravity just at will, in order to prove the glorious truth that > someone had achieved what Maharishi deemed Unity Consciousness. No one has > ever been able to do something through individual will which does not > originate in the universal uncreated willif, that is, the activity entails > flouting some natural law, like gravity. > > Had being able to fly anything do with enlightenment, Maharishi would have > mentioned it in the Science of Being and The Art of Living; it would be in > the Gita; and he would have described how Guru Dev proved his enlightenment > constantly by doing the flying sidhi. That is, levitating upon demand. The > very idea is absurd. Maharishi never even thought of the flying sidhi when he > became enlightened. And in all his video and audio tapes he never mentioned > this idea in twenty years of bringing his teaching to the world. Maharishi > wanted to link doing the sidhis with enlightenment, so me made this absurd > and indefensible assertion that the test of Unity is: Can you fly? > > Of course in another way of understanding him, he was of course perfectly > right. If cosmic intelligence wished to prove someone was enlightened, then > it would levitate that person*but only on its terms*, not on the terms of > the world, or Lawson. > > My experience of being enlightened was that everything was beautifully and > sometimes terrifyingly out of one's control. Getting de-enlightened had > everything do with with fighting to get control over one's own consciousness > and one's own actions. > > If Maharishi could say this he should also have said: The test of Unity is > whether you can hold back death, whether you can make yourself not subject to > death, whether you can, then, acquire physical immortality. Maharishi Mahesh > Yogi, he was magnificent and wondrous and magical, but he was in the end just > another created human beingbut imprisoned inside a mystical hallucination. > The intelligences which created his enlightenment and his glorious moment in > creation, those same intelligences abandoned him in the end: Maharishi never > made one human being beautiful, nor did he make any human being a Saint. But > that was because in the end Maharishi was not beautiful and was not a Saint. > Although for thousands of us initiators, for a ten year period, he was better > than Christ. And as beautiful, and as saintly. > > I would say, Lawson, if someone obeyed the demand of an individual person's > challenge to their enlightenment, and *they answered that person on that > person's terms*: "Prove to me you in Unity by flying right now"by actually > flying, then they would certainly have demonstrated some extraordinary power, > but they would prove that they were not in Unity. Because a person in Unity > does not behave on the basis of the desires and demands of an single > individual consciousness. A person in Unity behaves according to the > intentions of the intelligences which made that person enlightened. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Why did he wait until Robin had precipitated a crisis > > > > > at MIU--even telling Bevan prior to that to leave Robin > > > > > alone--if he knew all along Robin wasn't in UC? > > > > > > > > He was having valid experiences of UC, according to all > > > > accounts Why discourage Robin in his growth rather then > > > > letting him draw his own conclusions by MMY's generalized > > > > public statements? > > > > > > How would telling Robin he wasn't quite there yet have > > > discouraged Robin's growth? > > > > MMY had ALREADY told Robin and everyone else that the TM-Sidhis would give > > them a feel for whether or not they were "quite there". OBviously, Robin > > didn't get the memo. > > > > > > > > > > In 1983, he was causing big problems at MIU. Why didn't > > > MMY interfere then? > > > > > > > Robin never went back and asked MMY to revalidate things, > > > > did he? > > > > > > They were in personal contact at least once after Robin > > > had set up his own group in Victoria (before coming to > > > MIU). > > > > And MMY llike as not gave him the same advice he gave everyone else: be > > practical in society and, the TM-Sidhis gives you a signpost of whether or > > not you are fully enlightened, etc. > > > > As I said, Robin obviously didn't get the memo. > > > > > > > > > Had he done so, MMY might have said "don't worry" or he > > > > might have said "go and be practical in society" as he > > > > did with Curtis. > > > > > > I think that was Joe Kellett, not Curtis. > > > > THought it was Curtis. No matter. > > > > > > > > > Either way... > > > > > > > > > There doesn't seem to be any way we can know what was > > > > > going on in MMY's mind where Robin was concerned. > > > > > > > > Of course there is. MMY made a very clear statement about > > > > full success in any of the sidhis, such as yogic flying, > > > > and full enlightenment. > > > > > > You're still assuming you understand that statement. > > > > I think that I do, at least on a certain level. > > > > > > > > > It was up to Robin to make the connection, and apparently > > > > he never did. > > > > > > Or he did, and knew it didn't mean what you think it > > > meant. > > > > > > > Or he didn't and hasn't. > > > > > Like I say, best to ask him how he sees all this. You > > > and I aren't in a position to say what's what. > > > > > > > I believe he has already addressed this in a post from some time ago: he > > rejects MMY's position on this outright. > > > > > > L. > > >
